Why not become a lifetime supporting member of the site with a one-time donation of any amount? Your donation entitles you to a ton of additional benefits, including access to exclusive discounts and downloads, the ability to enter monthly free software drawings, and a single non-expiring license key for all of our programs.

You must sign up here before you can post and access some areas of the site. Registration is totally free and confidential.

I just have started seeing this stuff in installers. I know what they are up to personally. If you read their site they claim not to be adware spyware but snooping on people`s choices is a form of attack on privacy in my book.

Recommendations are made to users during the installation process. Utilizing the install process creates a user-friendly experience and offers optimal engagement for making a software recommendation. The user is presented with a screen that describes the recommendation, at which time they may choose to install the recommended software.

That makes it adware.

Quote

We then provide analytics back to the creators, so they can see how their software and recommendations are performing. This way they can better understand how to build and recommend great applications.

That makes it spyware.

Quote

We've also provided our technology as a platform to a handful of software creators who are utilizing an offer screen during the install process as an advertising unit. Some creators are already monetizing their distribution by offering apps like browser toolbars, so we're helping them improve their user experience and optimize the effectiveness of their offers.

That makes it your average commercial adware that we are all already familiar with.

The difference is the sales pitch to developers. Some might just be tricked into seeing it as different, harmless and beneficial. It's not the typical "bundle our nasty crap with your software and make money" pitch. They offer to advertise your stuff in other people's software, instead. (of course they do get to the mentioning of the browser toolbars later on, though.)

If these "recommendations" or "ads" are only shown during installation, and are clearly optional, then i probably wouldn't call it spyware or adware.it's definitely a gray area.. but if the program you install doesn't show ads then we are just talking about an installer issue -- and for me the really important thing in such a case is that the user be told clearly that the optional things to install are really optional, and not be checked by default.

i still wouldnt use it in my software, but i also wouldnt consider it evil.

If the installer is showing ads and collecting information about the users of your software it is both adware and spyware, no matter how you slice it.

If it is offering toolbars it's the same crap we have always seen...no different.

For me, personally, it's not a gray area and it's abusive. There is no difference between showing an ad for some other product by some other developer in the installer of my software, no matter how much I might even like that software myself, and popping up an ad for Viagra on a user's screen during the install process.

An ad is an ad...plain & simple.

Plus OpenCandy is a commercial enterprise backed by venture capitalists that seeks to make money from you doing this to your software, most likely in the toolbars they will be offering to your users.

I don't like it when I am constantly having a Yahoo toolbar offer shoved in my face when installing or upgrading things, and I am sure I am not alone. This OpenCandy crap just seeks to make it happen even more often than it already does, and make a buck off of other people's hard work.

Instead of just big companies like Sun, Opera, and the like making deals with Yahoo, we are going to see predator middle man companies like OpenCandy doing it, without developing any software of their own to push it. They want to use your work to make it easier and more profitable for them to get a chunk of the toolbar cash pie.

The only thing sweet about this candy is the sales pitch to naive developers that might just fall for it.

Lets be careful about the choice of words for the naming "Open"+"Candy". They are making it like this stuff is all open and sweet. app103 is right on the track. These guys are very sneaky.

The reason I brought it up is that I was testing Miro and they seemed to integrate OC into Miro. So I went to bug list and pretty much complained about it. And the developers responses varied but I think they will remove it at some point. From my understanding is that not all developers understand the side effects of these stuff on the users.

In the past I got hit by toolbars and spywares, no not because I clicked on" please god please install ask.com" button. They install it anyways either you click on the option or not, your choice is irrelevant.

One the of the case for me was Pdfcreator which was stunning surprise to me. Since then I am deadly careful.

OpenCandy was started by founding and early members of DivX, at which we were responsible for distributing hundreds of millions of DivX software downloads, and now we want to use what we've learned to help the software community. Software distribution is of immense value but largely untapped, so we started OpenCandy to democratize this value. Now we're backed by top-tier investors and partnered with some really great software creators.

Do we remember the early days of DivX and its adware/spyware? If that was their idea of partnering with "great software creators", then what do we have to look forward to with this?

As a matter of fact, not only did I donate during the recent DonationCoder fundraiser, I also twittered about the campaign (http://twitter.com/drapps/statuses/1307938963). More than 50 people clicked that link and hopefully some % of them made a donation to DonationCoder. You can see the link stats here: http://bit.ly/info/UhnDN . Iâ€™ve also been recommending ScreenshotCaptor (according to my archives) since 10/7/2005. Thatâ€™s when the installer was 2,930KB. Although I think Iâ€™ve been recommending it longer than that. And yes, although I did activate my account here today, Iâ€™ve been around the forum reading it on and off for years.

Secondly, Iâ€™m OpenCandyâ€™s Software Community Guru.

Little info about the type of user I am:

-I use a Hosts file (managed by HostsMan utilizing the MVPS hosts, hpHosts, Mikeâ€™s Ad Blocking Hosts and Peter Loweâ€™s AdServers List block lists). My hosts file contains over 170k entries of crappy sites. I even imported it into OS X as well using Gas Mask.

-I use the NoScript, QuickJava, AdBlock, Permit Cookies, Stop Autoplay extensions in Firefox. I basically always leave Java permanently disabled. When I go to a site I need to login to, I have to not only enable Javascript on that site via NoScript, I also have to manually allow each cookie individually in order to successfully complete logging into a site.

-I use a software firewall on Windows (currently Comodo) and OS X (Little Snitch). I donâ€™t use one on Ubuntu.

-I have Windows Update disabled (not recommended for novice users). I manually download and test the patches that come out on Patch Tuesday before deploying them on my main computers.

-My favorite podcast is Steve Gibson and Leo Laporte's Security Now. I've been a listener since the first episode.

-I could go on and on, but Iâ€™m going to write a blog post about my user habits and security tipsâ€¦ Somedayâ€¦

How I Discovered OpenCandy

I first discovered OpenCandy on 11/22/08 when installing an update to MediaCoder. I twittered about it here: http://twitter.com/drapps/statuses/1018127759. I made a conscious decision that day to allow Comodo to permit MediaCoder to connect to the internet. Even though I had never seen MediaCoder ask to connect to the internet, I permitted it simply because if I figured that if I trusted the developers of MediaCoder enough to install their software, then I ought to be able to trust them enough to let their installer connect to the internet. And Iâ€™m glad I did, because not only did I discover OpenCandy (which, 3 months later, afforded me the opportunity to interview with them to be their Software Community Guru), I discovered an awesome way for regular users to discover great software. Whereas I have personally introduced hundreds of regular people to great software, OpenCandy is a way to introduce millions of people to great software!

Those Divx Guys and My Life as a User Advocate

Iâ€™m not going to defend what some of the colleagues did while at Divx. Because I was one of the people who spent in inordinate amount of time removing the crap that Divx installed. Actually, out of the last 9 years, Iâ€™m confident in saying that Iâ€™ve spent at 2 hours a day, Monday through Sunday removing malware, adware and spyware from userâ€™s systems. I do it for free (for those who canâ€™t afford to pay) and I do it as a paid IT consultant (to home users and small businesses). So Iâ€™ve spent the equivalent of 273 days removing malware from systems. Heck I havenâ€™t even been alive for 11,000 days. So approximately 2.5% of my life Iâ€™ve spent removing malware! (WOW! Now that I did the calculation and see it in writingâ€¦ itâ€™s sad.) That doesnâ€™t include the unfathomable amount of time Iâ€™ve spent setting up Windows systems and securing them.

When I was interviewed by the OpenCandy team in February, I let my displeasure with what Divx bundled be known. And you know what? Those that were involved knew they made a mistakeâ€¦ and had no problem saying so. EVERYBODY makes mistakes... just NEVER make the SAME one TWICE. They didn't... What they learned at DivX allowed them to identify an opportunity to democratize software distribution so that ALL developers and ALL users could benefit. So they embarked on a mission and created a vision to do just that... the RIGHT way. And they (we) have built something that is not only beneficial to the developer community (they can increase distribution, make money or both), itâ€™s really beneficial to users (users get to discover great software via recommendations by developers of applications they trust).

â€śAdware or advertising-supported software is any software package which automatically plays, displays, or downloads advertisements to a computer after the software is installed on it or while the application is being used. Some types of adware are also spyware and can be classified as privacy-invasive software.â€ť

Spyware: NO way, Jose

Wikipediaâ€™s definition of spyware: â€śSpyware is computer software that is installed surreptitiously on a personal computer to collect information about a user, their computer or browsing habits without the user's informed consent.[1]

While the term spyware suggests software that secretly monitors the user's behavior, the functions of spyware extend well beyond simple monitoring. Spyware programs can collect various types of personal information, such as Internet surfing habits and sites that have been visited, but can also interfere with user control of the computer in other ways, such as installing additional software and redirecting Web browser activity. Spyware is known to change computer settings, resulting in slow connection speeds, different home pages, and/or loss of Internet or functionality of other programs. In an attempt to increase the understanding of spyware, a more formal classification of its included software types is captured under the term privacy-invasive software.â€ť

Thatâ€™s certainly not anything that OpenCandy enables or would EVER take part in! (I wouldnâ€™t work for a company that didâ€¦ I wouldnâ€™t be able to sleep at night.)

OpenCandyâ€™s Analytics

This is probably a good time to address the analytics side of the OpenCandy network. The analytics that we provide back to our publishers (those who recommend other software using OpenCandy) includes NON-PERSONALLY identifiable information such as the userâ€™s country, operating system, operating system version, operating system language, and when the software is installed (and optionally, if it is uninstalled). This information is aggregated in daily intervals and individuals are NOT identifiable (see more below). Thatâ€™s it.

Some facts about OpenCandy Recommendations

-OpenCandy powered recommendations are OPT-IN. And I donâ€™t mean â€śopt-inâ€ť (or as I call it "opt-tricky") in the sense that you have to careful where you click, I mean explicitly and clearly, OPT-IN. The recommended software doesnâ€™t install unless the user clicks â€śYes, I WANT to install that!â€ť

-Developers choose what software they want to recommend. That's (what I think) is the real beauty of how OpenCandy works.

-OpenCandyâ€™s technology has ZERO functionality outside of the software installer that it is integrated with. Period.

-Hereâ€™s what OpenCandy knows about "you": A Windows (XP, Vista, whatever) computer residing in the United States (or some other COUNTRY, yes just COUNTRY) accepted or declined an OpenCandy recommendation. That's orders of magnitude less than Google knows about (the actual) you through Google Search, Adwords, Adsense, Doubleclick cookies, etc...

What happens when a developer wants to participate in the OpenCandy network

-I check the Hosts file providers to see if a potential developer that wants to participate in OpenCandy is on those lists.

-I check antispyware forums to see if userâ€™s have any issues with the software.

-I look at the companyâ€™s business practices in general.

In addition, our software guidelines (which we be available soon for all to see) were built on top of AND further enhance policies created by Download.com, StopBadware, and the Antispyware Coalition. As well as our own idealsâ€¦

We do make software of our own. Our recommendation engine and client is built by a fantastic team of software engineers. And we offer that engine for free. If you just want to recommend other software for free, you can do that with OpenCandy. We still have to spend the man/woman power to audit your software from a privacy/security standpoint before inclusion in the network, configure the pool of applications you want to recommend, create the recommendation screens, test the installer to make sure it works properly, and a slew of other tasks.

Yes, itâ€™s true, we DONâ€™T create our own software to distribute opt-out toolbars to â€śmake millionsâ€ť, thatâ€™s not why OpenCandy was started and certainly not anything we will ever do. In the future, we MAY create software that provides value to users that doesnâ€™t currently exist today. But you wonâ€™t see opt-out toolbars in it. Itâ€™s kind of presumptuous to say that we took the easy way, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Itâ€™s takes a lot of people-power to build, maintain and continuously improve on what we are doing.

On top of that, I like to mention that we donâ€™t take other peopleâ€™s hard earned work and slap OpenCandy on it. Developers decide for themselves if they want to participate in OpenCandy. They can also change who they want to recommend at any time.

On another note, right now as I type this, there is a shady download site that takes open source software, wraps them in a funky installer and shows screen after screen of opt-out junky (or at least of very little user value) softwareâ€¦ In addition and to throw salt in the wound, this site buys Google Ads using the open source projectsâ€™ names to trick people into going to their site to download THEIR bastardized/crapified versions of open source software. NOW THAT IS WRONG!

Old Fashioned Way?

Personally Iâ€™m not a fan of toolbars (the only one I use is Groowe in Firefox, but I do have the Windows Live toolbar installed in IE). Historically the reason Iâ€™m not a fan is because Iâ€™ve spent too much time removing toolbar after toolbar from someoneâ€™s system who didnâ€™t intentionally install it in the first place. Yes OpenCandyâ€™s network and technology will be used (actually it already is) to distribute toolbars. The difference is that the CHOICE to install the toolbar or not is right there for the user to decide. I donâ€™t inherently think toolbars are badâ€¦ I inherently dislike anything opt-out. And toolbars are (currently and likely to remain) a small % of recommendations in the OpenCandy network. And besides, as I said, they are clearly opt-in.

Web Privacy, User Privacy, Software Recommendations

When you surf the web, every site you go to, without explicit user permission, is, at least (temporarily) logging: Your IP address, what browser you used, the browser version, operating system and version, where you came from (and if you came from a search engine, which search terms you used) and sometimes (depending on security settings or lack thereof) other sites you have browsed during your session. There isnâ€™t any choice there, if you surf the web thatâ€™s the way things are. And soon, all software installers will be the same way. But this can either be done the right way (not obtaining or storing personally identifiable information) or the wrong way (blatant flaunting of exploiting user privacy and sharing personally identifiable information with any number of unrelated third parties). We chose the right way. Right now we are the minority. But my hope is that what we are doing fundamentally creates a foundation (and changes the current ways of which) developers generate revenue from recommendations. We are either going to be successful and show the world how to do this the right way or watch the real predators (Iâ€™m not naming names) destroy the relationship between developers and users.

I donâ€™t consider any other company currently doing advertising during software installations a competitor. For the simple reason that they do it in a way that is disrespectful to users (opt-out software of little value). And they try to obfuscate the fact that the additional software is optional (by placing the Accept button where the Next button should be).

You can still install software that integrates OpenCandy and not see a recommendationâ€¦ Itâ€™s the same as using an ad blocker in your browser, except in this case you use a software firewall to deny access to the internet for the software you are installing.

Also, some open source developers (that participate in OpenCandy) are still producing an installer-less version of their software, which means you can still install their application without ever seeing an OpenCandy recommendation.

Would you rather have another opt-out browser toolbar trying to push it's way onto your system or have a recommendation for a piece of software that a developer you trust (you trust them enough to install their software) loves? Especially when that recommendation is made in an easy to understand, non-sneaky, user-centric, opt-in manner?

Thatâ€™s what I donâ€™t understand about the Sun & Opera comment. Basically it says that #1) only big companies should be able to recommend software and #2 that itâ€™s okay that they do it opt-out. We provide technology and a moderated network that any size developer, project or company can use (for free) to recommend software they love in a user-friendly way.

Believe me that when I say I had no idea how much money was around for people willing to bundle opt-out (or opt-tricky, those who put the Accept button where the Next button should be). If we wanted to, we could just go that route and be immensely profitable already. But thatâ€™s not what the founders of OpenCandy envisioned and thatâ€™s definitely NOT what I signed up for. I need to sleep at night and I can because we chose, instead, to create valuable to the whole software ecosystem (developers and users). Weâ€™re a small startup trying to make good things happen in the worst economic climate since the Great Depression.

I joined OpenCandy for a few reasons, but none more important than because I believe we can change the software world for the better. The fact that somebody (anybody) residing in a country with less opportunities than the US, armed with nothing other than a PayPal account and a desire to create a great piece of software, can give it away for free and make money recommending other software they love (via OpenCandy) is, to me, an absolutely INCREDIBLE thing.

Venture Capital & Capitalism (GASP!)

We are in business to help developers get more visibility and make money, if they chose to do so. It's a key part of enabling our vision of helping developers innovate and create better, more competitive products. By doing so, consumers benefit by having better products available to them. That's our vision. We limit our ability to help developers accomplish this if we can't help them gain visibility and/or make money.

Money also means that we are able to give back the software community at large. As a matter of fact, I just got back from Montreal a few days ago. We sponsored the Libre Graphics Meeting (aka LGM). LGM is where the developers of open source graphics applications (Gimp, Inkscape, Hugin, Scribus, Blender, etc) get together once a year to discuss their software, solve problems, plot a course for where their projects are going, socialize and more. I also got to speak at LGM. I encourage anyone (who is STILL) reading this who wants to find out more about the type of person I am to watch my talk called â€śOpen Source & Money: Not Mutually Exclusiveâ€ť. Itâ€™s not your typical (read: boring) PowerPoint presentation. Heck, itâ€™s not even really about OpenCandy (I didnâ€™t say anything about OpenCandy during the presentation; instead I let the audience decide if they wanted to ask about OpenCandy during Q&A... they did, it was OPT-IN!). Itâ€™s about the fact that life is short, be passionate, build something of value to the world and leave a real legacy.

What about Me?

Iâ€™m paid by OpenCandy to wear many hats. It includes community outreach, talking to developers, learning from users, auditing software that wishes to participate in OpenCandy (both as publishers, those who recommend and as advertisers, those who wish to be recommended) to make sure they adhere to our guidelines, speaking at conferences, rewriting our website to accurately reflect our mission/vision, talking to developers of applications I LOVE about participating in OpenCandy, and a whole bunch of other things...

I know this is an incredible long post on a forum. I didnâ€™t expect to wake up this morning to a Google Alert about OpenCandy being raked over the proverbial coals. On the whole Iâ€™m really glad to have this discussion, especially in the open for all to see and debate. So ask me anything, here, or via email. And if you decide that Iâ€™m a decent person after all, you can follow me on Twitter. There you can find me tweeting about great software and trying to help people solve tech issues (hardware/software).

I'm very impressed by your post -- very thoughtful and straightforward i thought, and you addressed all of the issues i had remaining questions about.

Speaking just for me, I think you've re-affirmed my take on OpenCandy, which is that I don't see anything wrong with it and I can see how it would be a good thing for some authors. Though I definitely can see why people are wary (which is why posts like this explaining the policies are important).

App103 has strong feelings about these things, and i applaud her for looking out for users -- people will have different views on these issues. Mostly I appreciate your post explaining things in a thoughtful and personal way.

I hope you will continue your role in making sure that OpenCandy maintains the policies you describe -- making sure that "recommended" software is opt-in and that nothing is installed on the users pc that would send info back to the site about user during usage of their selected program.

If you read their site they claim not to be adware spyware but snooping on people`s choices is a form of attack on privacy in my book.

The only extra thing i want to comment on is how bizarre a situation we are in where every web site on the planet tracks every click we make, how long we stay on every given page, etc., and no one raises an eyebrow -- but yet if a "program" does it, most of us go crazy. Same thing with advertisements. As the boundary between desktop and web applications shrink, this is going to get even more schizophrenic.

For me personally, i don't care at all and consider it fine if an installer shows "advertisements" or "banners" -- as long as it doesnt install anything on my pc to do this AFTER the install completes.

And in the same way, i don't mind if it offers me some *OPT-IN* choices that don't try to pretend they are required installs, and aren't checked by default where i might mistakenly install them.

And lastly, if the installer wants to send minor info about which optional things i have chosen to install, during the installation process, that doesn't really bother me -- though it might be nice to ask the user's permission first.

I'm not sure if Andrew explained this part -- but if not -- i do think that the program should tell the user explicitly when the time comes to do it, what info is being sent back to the server. In these days of trojans and viruses -- it's just common sense that when an application connects out to a server, it should tell the user this is happening and why, to avoid people jumping to wrong conclusions.

In summary, to me the installer is much like the download page on a website -- i don't care if they want to show me some ads, ask me some questions, etc., before i install. Just don't put anything evil on my PC permanently.

It's nice that Andrew is a supporter of DC but is irrelevant to my view of OpenCandy -- if someone on DC does something any of us feel is wrong, we should speak up about it, regardless of their status on the site, etc. In fact that may be an even more important reason for us to speak out.

And wow, I'm glad somebody actually read the whole post! Apologies that it's so inordinately long

Quote

I hope you will continue your role in making sure that OpenCandy maintains the policies you describe -- making sure that "recommended" software is opt-in and that nothing is installed on the users pc that would send info back to the site about user during usage of their selected program.

My word is my bond... As long as I am at OpenCandy (even without me there it'd be the same way) there will NEVER be a day that WE install or do ANYTHING that surreptitiously sends info about users during usage of their selected apps.

No question about it... If we were ever to build something with that type of Wakoopa-like functionality, it would be EXPLICITLY and CLEARLY OPT-IN. (I would think something like that would be a standalone app.)

Speaking of Wakoopa, I don't currently participate in it, but I always thought it was interesting that people do. I think Wakoopa's policies are great though -- you own the data. That's the way it should be.

Speaking of the difference between the web and the desktop, that's something we have talked about before (it was even brought up in my interview). My take is that that type of tracking is "inherent" to the web (you don't own it like you do your desktop), so that's why it's tolerated the way it is. Who knows? Maybe I'm wrong. It's a like a separation of church and state type thing to me. I own my desktop, I don't own the web. It'll be interesting if Microsoft (since they're such a large company) actually releases an ad-supported (and I don't mean a recommendation during the install process) version of Office. Times, they are a changing. Let's all be vigilant and make sure things change the way we want them to... in a way that doesn't trample all over our privacy/rights.

Thanks again for reading my long post and for the time/energy/effort you put into DonationCoder.

We don't have an installer wrapper or custom installer. Developers who want to recommend software using OpenCandy just need to download our SDK and integrate a script into their installer (currently we support NSIS, Inno and Installshield installer platforms). Developers who have done it say it takes approximately 20-60 minutes...

I did read your post. I can see where your ambitions about OC come from. But as a user and also promoter of good applications written by good people I have no interest in supporting OC in any way, I would even go further and try to inform people about. They take it or not but it would be my duty to inform people.

The thing is that most of the attempts like OC success relies on people`s ignorance or illiteracy about how this kind of stuff operates. Uneducated people are very good targets for this kinds of ventures. For example I totally understand what mouser`s position is, he is a developer and he understands many aspects of it. But many people out there have no idea about this kind of stuff. By giving a name like OpenCandy you think you can win hearts of minds of people. The only reason many people would not say anything about stuff like this because they have no idea about what you are up to.

Your personal assurances has really no meaning to me. I am glad you fulfill your ambitions and you are passionate about them but that is the end of the story for me pretty much. I am not trying to be rude at all, I just do not think the future you are representing is good for everyone and I find that the facts in your post are just fictional for now. As long as all the statistics and numbers are not disclosed I personally would not change my mind. If you want to be "open" let it be.

When I decide to use an application for longer term, I check out developer`s responses, developer`s attitude in the forums, number of releases and the path he/she takes when it comes to privacy. One of the reason I am so passionate about FARR (mouser`s app) because he is a good guy and he is trying to do right thing with his application developements. He could have taken the divx guys path but then I personally would not use Farr anymore because a good software without good developer is a dead software to me.

Btw I was going to Libre graphics meeting as well but I had a project cameup that was conflicting with Libre Graphics dates. I had friends attended though.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I'm never going to be able to change every person's mind, no matter how clear, factual and detailed the information I (we) provide.

As far as the current crop of developers using OpenCandy, they love it. They continue to embrace us and associate themselves with us. It's clear a lot of talented and well respected developers and industry leaders are happy and excited about what we're doing.

"OpenCandy has figured out a way for the most successful software developers to share the attention flow that comes their way with other developers whose work they admire," said O'Reilly Media's Tim O'Reilly. "It's a unique application of the implicit social graph in the software development community."

I have a simple question. Do you collect data in anyway (including my refusal to install OC or OC recommendations ) If I refuse to install OC and its affiliates offers? In other words would you know if I refuse to install your recommandation or OC toolbar whatever you are offering? DO you set the cookie before or after the OC offer?

In my experience with regular (normal, novice, whatever we should call them) users, they prefer installers because they aren't sure what to do with zip files. I'm a techie, but personally I don't have a preference of installer vs. zip file. As long as an application with an installer includes a 'Custom' install option where I can choose where to install the app and select/deselect shortcuts and stuff like that, I'm happy.

Plus (if necessary for some apps, like Spiceworks for example) installers help ensure prerequisites like .Net, VC++ redistributables, Ruby, PHP, Python, certain necessary patches, etc are installed. Nothing worse than trying to run an app and find out you need to download and install something to make it actually run.

We DON'T know that "you" rejected an recommendation. We DO know when "a user" who completes installation of an application powered with OpenCandy rejects a recommendation. The way we see/store that information is in the aggregate like this: A computer installing <insert publisher's app> running an English version of Windows Vista located in the USA rejected an offer of <recommended application>. This aggregate information helps us improve recommendations. Much the same way Google AdWords works (but to me in a much less intrusive manner.)

In my experience with regular (normal, novice, whatever we should call them) users, they prefer installers because they aren't sure what to do with zip files. I'm a techie, but personally I don't have a preference of installer vs. zip file. As long as an application with an installer includes a 'Custom' install option where I can choose where to install the app and select/deselect shortcuts and stuff like that, I'm happy.

Plus (if necessary for some apps, like Spiceworks for example) installers help ensure prerequisites like .Net, VC++ redistributables, Ruby, PHP, Python, certain necessary patches, etc are installed. Nothing worse than trying to run an app and find out you need to download and install something to make it actually run.

I am sorry but that is not an answer to my worry. I mentioned that because of your venture will force more developers to use installers when they do not need to. You are making it as if like installers are needed and necessary. They are not necessary in half of the cases. Without installers your whole idea of OC fails unless you force them to integrate into their application which will be a worse case.

If O'Reilly is investing in exploitation of spam technologies, I would stop buying their products as well. No big deal.

I also do not think that those Divx guys learned their lessons. They might ask for a second chance but I am not seeing them being any further than they were back then. It seems like they are just adapting themselves and have not moved an inch forward and no salvation there.

I just do not see OC being any good or bringing anything good. This is no different than getting a spam call in the middle of a dinner, you know that is when they call you.

I might be entitled to my opinions but I can educate-convince quite a lot of people. I know that is what you are addressing here, but you have a very hard case to sell to be honest.

I mentioned that because of your venture will force more developers to use installers when they do not need to.

Not trying to convince you to change your mind Kartal, i respect your opinions -- but i'm not sure what you mean about forcing developers to use installers -- surely no one is going to force people to use this technology.

One other note:I actually use Inno Setup for all of my programs, but i use a technique that let's me make the installers optional, so people can manually unzip the install programs to use them without running an installer. The same could be done for developers who want to use Open Candy with inno setup (and NIS installer).

Well OC relies on the fact that there is an installer with the application. If there is no installer they cannot run the recommendation service unless they start showing banners during startups of the softwares which can be another annoying issue for people. What I was trying to say that, lets say I developed a popular alarm software and I am distributing it as a single zip file. OC approaches me and tells me great things about it and I decide to use it. Well from that point I would give up the zip distro because OC mainly relies on installers, as far as I understand.

I am glad that your installers can be uncompressed. In general before installing something I generally try to uncompress it first, if I can`t then I run a spyware on it after that I install it. So in that respect I totally appreciate your sensitivity towards users who dislike installers.